Where Is the Local News About COVID-19?

As if disinformation and confusion about COVID-19 at the national level were not bad enough, the pandemic also coincides with rising authoritarianism and declining local news coverage in many countries. Now more than ever, we must support independent journalism where it counts most in people's day-to-day lives.

PRINCETON – During a pandemic, accurate information can be a matter of life and death. People need reliable reports about the impact of the disease and the threat it poses to their city, community, or neighborhood. Most citizens’ immediate concern is not whether their country is on the right macro-trajectory, but whether their local grocery store is practicing proper hygiene and enforcing social-distancing measures.

One of the many tragedies of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it comes at a time when local media have been decimated in many countries, and when authoritarians such as US President Donald Trump, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have been waging all-out war on independent journalism. At a recent daily press conference, Trump accused a reporter of dispensing “fake news,” and then suggested that injecting household disinfectants might be effective against the coronavirus.

The heart of the problem is that local news, in particular, has been severely disrupted by a broader restructuring of the economy over the past two decades. Historically, advertising sustained serious journalism. As NYU’s Clay Shirky pointed out in a 2009 commentary, Wal-Mart may or may not have had an interest in the news from Iraq, but it was nonetheless subsidizing newspapers’ Baghdad bureaus.

When digital platforms like Google and Facebook started hoovering up the advertising revenues that previously went directly to news organizations, local outlets were the first to feel the pinch. Newsroom staff was cut dramatically. According to a recent Brookings Institution report, one in five local US newspapers has disappeared since 2004, leaving five million Americans with no local newspaper at all, and 60 million more with access to only one.

The growth of such “news deserts” has had profound political effects. When there are no journalists to report on town council meetings and public procurement decisions, corruption can run rampant. But partly because no one hears about it, political interest also declines. Hence, the shuttering of local papers has been associated with lower electoral turnout, fewer candidates seeking office, and more incumbents winning. The same trends undercut citizens’ representation at the national level, because local and regional papers cannot afford to keep a correspondent in the capital to report on what their members of Congress or Parliament are doing.

Less obviously, the decline of local news has reinforced the pernicious polarization that we are witnessing in a number of democracies. When it comes to local issues, citizens within the same community or neighborhood are generally pretty good about diagnosing problems and arriving at practical solutions to them. But as local reporting has dried up, the vacuum has been filled by national news, which tends to be geared toward zero-sum culture wars and partisan flame-throwing.

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more – all for less than $2 a week.

Subscribe Now

In Hungary, Turkey, and other countries where democracy and the rule of law are being systematically dismantled, some relatively independent national newspapers and websites have survived. But, perversely, such institutions can become a fig leaf for regimes facing international criticism for their attacks on press freedom, while pro-regime outlets often enjoy a monopoly at the local level. In rural Hungary, the situation has gotten so bad that the US Department of State has sought to subsidize independent reporting there.

Finally, the fate of local newspapers does not necessarily run in parallel with that of the national press. In the US, the major “papers of record” have benefited from a “Trump bump” since 2016. And while the COVID-19 crisis could, in theory, make citizens recognize the existential importance of receiving accurate information about their immediate surroundings, a local-news bump has yet to materialize.

What can be done? One solution is to tax the Big Tech companies that have destroyed the local-news business model, then redistribute the funds to local outlets. Another option is to legislate an antitrust exception so that newspapers can bargain collectively with digital platforms. The media outlets providing the actual facts and information that show up in a Google search should be compensated accordingly. Australia, the European Union, and several individual European countries have already moved in this direction, and similar legislation is pending in the US.

There has also been a blossoming of successful non-profit news organizations in recent years, many of which have a local focus. But the risk now is that such institutions could become dependent on some billionaire philanthropist, leaving them beholden to one person’s arbitrary will. The French social scientist Julia Cagé has proposed an ingenious solution: ordinary supporters of accurate reporting could pool their resources to secure controlling shares of the most effective media nonprofits.

It can be fine for such non-profits to have an agenda. After all, just as with political parties, supporters join organizations because the latter reflect their values in some ways. Having an agenda – such as investigating social injustices – is compatible with a commitment to the highest journalistic standards. What matters is accuracy, (ideally) accessibility, and accountability. As philosopher Onora O’Neill explains, truth-seeking media “needs internal disciplines and standards to make it assessable.” Audiences should be in a position to understand who funds an outlet, what guides its editorial decisions, and how particular stories are generated.

The problem with many right-wing outlets today is not necessarily that they have an agenda, but that the agenda is hidden, with mere opinion being presented as professionally generated news. A particularly egregious example is Fox “News,” which earlier this spring eagerly spread dangerous disinformation about the coronavirus, probably costing the lives of some of its predominantly elderly audience.

The COVID-19 crisis has reminded us that journalists are essential workers. Many national media outlets will probably survive (indeed, some are already benefiting from governments’ spending on emergency relief). But local journalism was already in bad shape before the crisis, and the public good it provides tends to be less appreciated. For the sake of our physical health and that of our democracies, we urgently must support it.

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Jan-Werner Mueller says the “many tragedies” of the current pandemic could have been mitigated had local media not been “decimated” in many countries. In times of a national health emergency, “accurate information can be a matter of life and death. People need reliable reports about the impact of the disease and the threat it poses to their city, community, or neighborhood.” Their immediate concern is less about “whether their country is on the right macro-trajectory, but whether their local grocery store is practicing proper hygiene and enforcing social-distancing measures.”The decline of local journalism has left “five million Americans with no local newspaper at all, and 60 million more with access to only one.” According to a recent Brookings Institution report, “one in five local US newspapers has disappeared since 2004.” This fuels the rise of low-quality “clickbait” news based on commercial incentives. Since Trump lashes out at respectable mainstream media and calls them “fake news,” authoritarians like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, India’s Narendra Modi have been “waging all-out war on independent journalism.” According to the author, “digital platforms” like Google and Facebook are to blame for the decline in print journalism, “hoovering up the advertising revenues that previously went directly to news organizations, local outlets were the first to feel the pinch. Newsroom staff was cut dramatically.” On a national level this decline has been partly compensated by a shift from print to digital, and a blizzard of information from other media. But locally, it is damaging to the community. A local newspaper reflects the place in which its readers live, and shapes shared feelings of hope and of anger and helps to piece together the story of where they are. It also holds powerful local figures to account. The author says, “when there are no journalists to report on town council meetings and public procurement decisions, corruption can run rampant. But partly because no one hears about it, political interest also declines.” When local people become less engaged in their community, distrust in public institutions increases. Often a “democracy deficit” can be linked to the closure of local newspapers, with “lower electoral turnout, fewer candidates seeking office, and more incumbents winning.” When people lose a communal voice, they feel angry, not listened to, and more likely to believe malicious rumour and misinformation. “The same trends undercut citizens’ representation at the national level, because local and regional papers cannot afford to keep a correspondent in the capital to report on what their members of Congress or Parliament are doing,” according to the author.While local newspapers in the US face an existential threat, the major national press saw a spike in donations and subscriptions since Trump’s election in 2016. People realised the importance of trustworthy news to make sense of what is going on. “And while the COVID-19 crisis could, in theory, make citizens recognize the existential importance of receiving accurate information about their immediate surroundings, a local-news bump has yet to materialize.” The author proposes a solution to revive local journalism – taxing the Big Tech companies, and redistributing the funds to local news outlets. “Another option is to legislate an antitrust exception so that newspapers can bargain collectively with digital platforms. The media outlets providing the actual facts and information that show up in a Google search should be compensated accordingly. Australia, the European Union, and several individual European countries have already moved in this direction, and similar legislation is pending in the US.”Ironically, Facebook and Google, had promised to breathe new life into local newspapers. They said they have each launched ambitious $100m-a-year schemes (covering Britain and the US) to find ways to rebuild the local news economies that between them they have effectively destroyed. The author says “there has also been a blossoming of successful non-profit news organizations in recent years, many of which have a local focus. But the risk now is that such institutions could become dependent on some billionaire philanthropist, leaving them beholden to one person’s arbitrary will.”This prompts critics to fear that we may one day lose a free and independent press. “The problem with many right-wing outlets today is not necessarily that they have an agenda, but that the agenda is hidden, with mere opinion being presented as professionally generated news. A particularly egregious example is Fox “News,” which earlier this spring eagerly spread dangerous disinformation about the coronavirus, probably costing the lives of some of its predominantly elderly audience.”The author says, the “French social scientist Julia Cagé has proposed an ingenious solution: ordinary supporters of accurate reporting could pool their resources to secure controlling shares of the most effective media nonprofits.” Indeed, good quality journalism constitutes a huge force to defend our vibrant civil society, and a benefit for the common good. We need to be properly informed so that we can make our own decisions and move forward as a country.

this could've been a good article about an important issue. rather, the author subverts his own message in (at least) two glaringly biased statements: (a) "tax the Big Tech companies... then redistribute the funds to local outlets"...I'm pretty sure the last thing we need is for government to pick and choose which news outlets get the benefits of such a policy, and (b) "The problem with many right-wing outlets today is ... that the agenda is hidden" ...whining about the so-called agenda of right wing news outlets without admitting that the lefties suffer from the same oft-hidden sort of bias is disingenuous at best.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.